1
|
A Multiple Baseline Trial of an Electronic ICU Discharge Summary Tool for Improving Quality of Care. Crit Care Med 2022; 50:1566-1576. [PMID: 35972243 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000005638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Effective communication between clinicians is essential for seamless discharge of patients between care settings. Yet, discharge summaries are commonly not available and incomplete. We implemented and evaluated a structured electronic health record-embedded electronic discharge (eDischarge) summary tool for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward. DESIGN Multiple baseline trial with randomized and staggered implementation. SETTING Adult medical-surgical ICUs at four acute care hospitals serving a single Canadian city. PATIENTS Health records of patients 18 years old or older, in the ICU 24 hours or longer, and discharged from the ICU to an in-hospital patient ward between February 12, 2018, and June 30, 2019. INTERVENTION A structured electronic note (ICU eDischarge tool) with predefined fields (e.g., diagnosis) embedded in the hospital-wide electronic health information system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We compared the percent of timely (available at discharge) and complete (included goals of care designation, diagnosis, list of active issues, active medications) discharge summaries pre and post implementation using mixed effects logistic regression models. After implementing the ICU eDischarge tool, there was an immediate and sustained increase in the proportion of patients discharged from ICU with timely and complete discharge summaries from 10.8% (preimplementation period) to 71.1% (postimplementation period) (adjusted odds ratio, 32.43; 95% CI, 18.22-57.73). No significant changes were observed in rapid response activation, cardiopulmonary arrest, death in hospital, ICU readmission, and hospital length of stay following ICU discharge. Preventable (60.1 vs 5.7 per 1,000 d; p = 0.023), but not nonpreventable (27.3 vs 40.2 per 1,000d; p = 0.54), adverse events decreased post implementation. Clinicians perceived the eDischarge tool to produce a higher quality discharge process. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of an electronic tool was associated with more timely and complete discharge summaries for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.
Collapse
|
2
|
Parsons Leigh J, Brundin-Mather R, Whalen-Browne L, Kashyap D, Sauro K, Soo A, Petersen J, Taljaard M, Stelfox HT. Effectiveness of an Electronic Communication Tool on Transitions in Care From the Intensive Care Unit: Protocol for a Cluster-Specific Pre-Post Trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2021; 10:e18675. [PMID: 33416509 PMCID: PMC7822720 DOI: 10.2196/18675] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2020] [Revised: 11/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transitions in care are vulnerable periods in health care that can expose patients to preventable errors due to incomplete or delayed communication between health care providers. Transitioning critically ill patients from intensive care units (ICUs) to other patient care units (PCUs) is particularly risky, due to the high acuity of the patients and the diversity of health care providers involved in their care. Instituting structured documentation to standardize written communication between health care providers during transitions has been identified as a promising means to reduce communication breakdowns. We developed an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured tool-an electronic transfer (e-transfer) tool-to facilitate and standardize the composition of written transfer summaries in the ICUs of one Canadian city. The tool consisted of 10 primary sections with a user interface combination of structured, automated, and free-text fields. OBJECTIVE Our overarching goal is to evaluate whether implementation of our e-transfer tool will improve the completeness and timeliness of transfer summaries and streamline communications between health care providers during high-risk transitions. METHODS This study is a cluster-specific pre-post trial, with randomized and staggered implementation of the e-transfer tool in four hospitals in Calgary, Alberta. Hospitals (ie, clusters) were allocated randomly to cross over every 2 months from control (ie, dictation only) to intervention (ie, e-transfer tool). Implementation at each site was facilitated with user education, point-of-care support, and audit and feedback. We will compare transfer summaries randomly sampled over 6 months postimplementation to summaries randomly sampled over 6 months preimplementation. The primary outcome will be a binary composite measure of the timeliness and completeness of transfer summaries. Secondary measures will include overall completeness, timeliness, and provider ratings of transfer summaries; hospital and ICU lengths of stay; and post-ICU patient outcomes, including ICU readmission, adverse events, cardiac arrest, rapid response team activation, and mortality. We will use descriptive statistics (ie, medians and means) to describe demographic characteristics. The primary outcome will be compared within each hospital pre- and postimplementation using separate logistic regression models for each hospital, with adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS Participating hospitals were cluster randomized to the intervention between July 2018 and January 2019. Preliminary extraction of ICU patient admission lists was completed in September 2019. We anticipate that evaluation data collection will be completed by early 2021, with first results ready for publication in spring or summer 2021. CONCLUSIONS This study will report the impact of implementing an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured transfer tool on communication and preventable medical errors among patients transferred from the ICU to other hospital care units. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03590002; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03590002. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/18675.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanna Parsons Leigh
- School of Health Administration, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.,Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Rebecca Brundin-Mather
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Liam Whalen-Browne
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Devika Kashyap
- Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Khara Sauro
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Department of Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Health Research Innovation Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Andrea Soo
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Jennie Petersen
- Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada
| | - Monica Taljaard
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Henry T Stelfox
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.,O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Savvopoulos S, Sampalli T, Harding R, Blackmore G, Janes S, Kumanan K, Gibson R, MacKnight C. Development of a quality scoring tool to assess quality of discharge summaries. J Family Med Prim Care 2018; 7:394-400. [PMID: 30090783 PMCID: PMC6060911 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_407_16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Timely, precise, and relevant communication between hospital-based clinicians and primary care physicians post-discharge (DC) ensures quality transitions, thereby reducing patient safety incidents and preventing readmission. At the present time there is limited knowledge of elements of quality or methods to score the quality criteria in the context of DC summaries. The Nova Scotia Health Authority, a provincial health system responsible for the delivery of services in a small Canadian province, embarked on a system-level approach to the standardization of DC summaries in an effort to improve quality and safety at care transitions from hospital to primary care. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature review to retrieve items relevant to quality in DC summaries, retrospective audit of charts, a consensus development process, and, finally, validation of a scoring tool were conducted in order to develop a quality scoring tool for DC summaries. Results: Relevant items were identified through the literature review and consensus development process. Corresponding definitions that were established assisted the development of the quality criteria, which were subsequently used to score the quality of DC summaries in our organization. Conclusion: The scoring tool developed through this work will be applied to help us gain a more in-depth understanding of quality in DC summaries and support the development of suitable education and quality processes in the health authority that can best support safe care transitions for patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stavros Savvopoulos
- Primary Health Care, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.,Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Tara Sampalli
- Primary Health Care, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.,Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Ruth Harding
- Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Gail Blackmore
- Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Sandra Janes
- Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Kothai Kumanan
- Primary Health Care, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Rick Gibson
- Primary Health Care, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.,Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Chris MacKnight
- Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.,Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sevick LK, Santana MJ, Ghali WA, Clement F. Prospective economic evaluation of an electronic discharge communication tool: analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e019139. [PMID: 29247110 PMCID: PMC5735407 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To complete an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the use of an electronic discharge communication tool (eDCT) compared with usual care. SETTING Patients being discharged from a single tertiary care centre's internal medicine Medical Teaching Units. PARTICIPANTS Between January 2012 and December 2013, 1399 patients were randomised to a discharge mechanism. Forty-five patients were excluded from the economic evaluation as they did not have data for the index hospitalisation cost; 1354 patients contributed to the economic evaluation. INTERVENTION eDCT generated at discharge containing structured content on reason for admission, details of the hospital stay, treatments received and follow-up care required. The control group was discharged via traditional dictation methods. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES The primary economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included the cost per death avoided and the cost per readmission avoided. RESULTS The average transcription cost was $C22.28 per patient, whereas the estimated cost of the eDCT was $C13.33 per patient. The cost per QALY gained was $C239 933 in the eDCT arm compared with usual care due to the very small gains in effectiveness and approximately $C800difference in resource utilisation costs. The bootstrap analyses resulted in eDCT being more effective and more costly in 29.2% of samples, less costly and more effective in 29.2% of samples, less effective and more costly in 23.9% of samples and finally, less costly and less effective in 17.7% of samples. CONCLUSIONS The eDCT reduced per patient costs of the generation of discharge summaries. The bootstrap estimates demonstrate considerable uncertainty supporting the finding of neutrality reported in the clinical component of the RCT. The immediate transcription cost savings and previously documented provider and patient satisfaction may increase the impetus for organisations to invest in such systems, provided they have a foundation of eHealth infrastructure and readiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01402609.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura K Sevick
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Maria-Jose Santana
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Medical Ward of the 21st Century, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - William A Ghali
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Medical Ward of the 21st Century, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Fiona Clement
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Weetman K, Wong G, Scott E, Schnurr S, Dale J. Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e018353. [PMID: 29133330 PMCID: PMC5695342 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2017] [Revised: 09/21/2017] [Accepted: 10/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Discharge documents are important for transferring information from hospitals to the referring clinician; in the UK and many countries, this is often the patient's general practitioner or family physician. However, patients may or may not receive their discharge letters, and whether patients should routinely receive discharge letters remains unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The review will consolidate evidence on patients receiving discharge letters through the theory-driven approach of a realist review.The review will be conducted systematically and seek to explain how, why, for whom and in what contexts does this practice 'work'. The review will specifically explore whether there are benefits of this practice and if so what are the important contexts for triggering the mechanisms associated with these outcome benefits. Negative effects will also be considered.Several steps will occur: devising initial rough programme theory, searching the evidence, selecting relevant documents, extracting data, synthesising and finally programme theory refinement. As the process is viewed as iterative, this cycle of steps may be repeated as many times as is necessary to reach theoretical saturation and may not be linear.The initial programme theory will be tested and refined throughout the review process and by stakeholder involvement of National Health Service (NHS) policy makers, practitioners and service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Formal ethical review is not required. The resulting programme theory is anticipated to explain how the intervention of patients receiving written discharge communication may work in practice, for whom and in what contexts; this will inform best practice of patients receiving discharge communication. The review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations and discussions with relevant organisations and stakeholders. While the review will be from the perspective of the UK NHS, its findings should be relevant to other healthcare systems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42017069863.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharine Weetman
- Division of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Geoffrey Wong
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Emma Scott
- Division of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Jeremy Dale
- Division of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Santana MJ, Holroyd-Leduc J, Southern DA, Flemons WW, O'Beirne M, Hill MD, Forster AJ, White DE, Ghali WA. A randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an electronic discharge communication tool for preventing death or hospital readmission. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26:993-1003. [PMID: 28821597 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2017] [Revised: 06/09/2017] [Accepted: 06/17/2017] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of an electronic discharge communication tool (e-DCT) for preventing death or hospital readmission, as well as reducing patient-reported adverse events after hospital discharge. The e-DCT assessed has already been shown to yield high-quality discharge summaries with high levels of patient and physician satisfaction. METHODS This two-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted in a Canadian tertiary care centre's internal medicine medical teaching units. Out of the 1953 patients approached and screened for inclusion, 1399 were randomised and available for data linkage for determination of the primary outcome. Participants were randomly assigned to e-DCT versus usual care (traditional discharge communication generated by dictation). The primary outcome was a composite of death or readmission within 90 days. The secondary outcome included any patient-reported adverse events within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS Among 1399 randomised participants, 230 of 701 participants (32.8%) in the e-DCT group experienced the primary composite outcome of death or readmission within 90 days vs 205 of 698 participants (29.4%) in the usual care group (p=0.166). The incidence at 30 days of patient-reported adverse outcomes (35% for e-DCT vs 34% for usual care) and adverse events (2.1% for e-DCT vs 1.8% for usual care) also did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS The e-DCT tested did not reduce the composite endpoint of death or readmission at 90 days, nor the incidence of patient-reported adverse events at 30 days. This neutral finding for hard clinical endpoints needs to be considered in the context of high patient and physician satisfaction, and high quality of discharge summaries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria J Santana
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Danielle A Southern
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ward W Flemons
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Maeve O'Beirne
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Michael D Hill
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Alan J Forster
- Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Deborah E White
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - William A Ghali
- Departments of Community Health Sciences and Medicine, and the Calgary Institute for Population and Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Okoniewska B, Santana MJ, Holroyd-Leduc J, Flemons W, O'Beirne M, White D, Ocampo W, Ghali WA, Forster AJ. A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16:357. [PMID: 27494991 PMCID: PMC4974809 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1526-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2015] [Accepted: 06/30/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The assessment of adverse events from a patient-centered view includes patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse outcome refers to any suboptimal outcome experienced by the patient; when adverse outcomes are identified through a patient interview these are called patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse event is an adverse outcome that is more likely due to the processes of medical care rather than to the mere progression of disease. In the context of a large-scale study assessing post-hospitalization adverse events, we developed a conceptual framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes (PRAOs). This methodological manuscript describes this conceptual framework. METHODS The PRAO framework builds on a validated adverse event ascertainment method including three phases: Phase 1 involves an inquiry to ascertain the occurrence of any patient-reported adverse outcome. It is completed by a structured telephone interview to obtain details - from a patient perspective - on symptoms that developed and/or worsened after hospitalization. Phase 2 involves the classification of PRAOs by physicians not involved in the patient care. Physician-reviewers then rate the PRAOs using well-adopted scales to determine whether the occurrence was the natural progression of the underlying illness or due to medical care. When the PRAO is rated as "due to medical care", it is then classified as an "adverse event". Phase 3 involves the classification of adverse events as preventable or ameliorable. RESULTS Out of the 1347 patients contacted at 1-month post-discharge, 469 reported AOs and after reviewing 369 cases, 29 were classified as AEs. Observed agreement levels between raters were 87.3, 85.5, and 85.2 % respectively displaying a good agreement (k > 0.60). CONCLUSION The framework incorporates PRAOs as a way to identify cases that need to be evaluated for adverse events. Further validation of this framework is warrant with the final aim of implementation at larger scale. The implementation of this framework will enable clinicians, researchers and healthcare institutions to compare outcome rates across providers and over time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Okoniewska
- W21C Research and Innovation Centre, G-01- TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive, NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada
| | - Maria Jose Santana
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3rd Floor, 3-36E, TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive, NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
| | - Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2 T9, Canada
| | - Ward Flemons
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2 T9, Canada
| | - Maeve O'Beirne
- Family Medicine and Primary Care Research Office, University of Calgary, G012, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4 N1, Canada
| | - Deborah White
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1 N4, Canada
| | - Wrochelle Ocampo
- W21C Research and Innovation Centre, G-01- TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive, NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada
| | - William A Ghali
- Department of Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3rd Floor, 3-36E, TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive, NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada
| | - Alan J Forster
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Civic Campus 1053 Carling Avenue, Box 684, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
de Grood C, Raissi A, Kwon Y, Santana MJ. Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review. J Multidiscip Healthc 2016; 9:335-44. [PMID: 27536128 PMCID: PMC4975159 DOI: 10.2147/jmdh.s103881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The goal of this scoping review was to summarize the current literature identifying barriers and opportunities that facilitate adoption of e-health technology by physicians. DESIGN Scoping review. SETTING MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases as provided by Ovid were searched from their inception to July 2015. Studies captured by the search strategy were screened by two reviewers and included if the focus was on barriers and facilitators of e-health technology adoption by physicians. RESULTS Full-text screening yielded 74 studies to be included in the scoping review. Within those studies, eleven themes were identified, including cost and liability issues, unwillingness to use e-health technology, and training and support. CONCLUSION Cost and liability issues, unwillingness to use e-health technology, and training and support were the most frequently mentioned barriers and facilitators to the adoption of e-health technology. Government-level payment incentives and privacy laws to protect health information may be the key to overcome cost and liability issues. The adoption of e-health technology may be facilitated by tailoring to the individual physician's knowledge of the e-health technology and the use of follow-up sessions for physicians and on-site experts to support their use of the e-health technology. To ensure the effective uptake of e-health technologies, physician perspectives need to be considered in creating an environment that enables the adoption of e-health strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chloe de Grood
- Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary
| | | | | | - Maria Jose Santana
- Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
de Grood C, Eso K, Santana MJ. Physicians' experience adopting the electronic transfer of care communication tool: barriers and opportunities. J Multidiscip Healthc 2015; 8:21-31. [PMID: 25609977 PMCID: PMC4298297 DOI: 10.2147/jmdh.s72953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess physicians' perceptions on a newly developed electronic transfer of care (e-TOC) communication tool and identify barriers and opportunities toward its adoption. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS The study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching center as part of a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an e-TOC communication tool. The e-TOC technology was developed through iterative consultation with stakeholders. This e-TOC summary was populated by acute care physicians (AcPs) and communicated electronically to community care physicians (CcPs). The AcPs consisted of attending physicians, resident trainees, and medical students rotating through the Medical Teaching Unit. The CcPs were health care providers caring for patients discharged from hospital to the community. AcPs and CcPs completed validated surveys assessing their experience with the newly developed e-TOC tool. Free text questions were added to gather general comments from both groups of physicians. Units of analysis were individual physicians. Data from the surveys were analyzed using mixed methods. RESULTS AcPs completed 138 linked pre- and post-rotation surveys. At post-rotation, each AcP completed an average of six e-TOC summaries, taking an average of 37 minutes per e-TOC summary. Over 100 CcPs assessed the quality of the TOC summaries, with an overall rating of 8.3 (standard deviation: 1.48; on a scale of 1-10). Thematic analyses revealed barriers and opportunities encountered by physicians toward the adoption of the e-TOC tool. While the AcPs highlighted issues with timeliness, usability, and presentation, the CcPs identified barriers accessing the web-based TOC summaries, emphasizing that the summaries were timely and the quality of information supported continuity of care. CONCLUSION Despite the barriers identified by both groups of physicians, the e-TOC communication tool was well received. Our experience can serve as a template for other health research teams considering the implementation of e-health technologies into health care systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chloe de Grood
- Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Katherine Eso
- Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Maria Jose Santana
- Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Al-Damluji MS, Dzara K, Hodshon B, Punnanithinont N, Krumholz HM, Chaudhry SI, Horwitz LI. Hospital variation in quality of discharge summaries for patients hospitalized with heart failure exacerbation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2015; 8:77-86. [PMID: 25587091 DOI: 10.1161/circoutcomes.114.001227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Single-site studies have demonstrated inadequate quality of discharge summaries in timeliness, transmission, and content, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes. However, degree of hospital-level variation in discharge summary quality for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS We analyzed discharge summaries of patients enrolled in the Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes (Tele-HF) study. We assessed hospital-level performance on timeliness (fraction of summaries completed on the day of discharge), documented transmission to the follow-up physician, and content (presence of components suggested by the Transitions of Care Consensus Conference). We obtained 1501 discharge summaries from 1640 (91.5%) patients discharged alive from 46 hospitals. Among hospitals contributing ≥ 10 summaries, the median hospital dictated 69.2% of discharge summaries on the day of discharge (range, 0.0%-98.0%; P<0.001); documented transmission of 33.3% of summaries to the follow-up physician (range, 0.0%-75.7%; P<0.001); and included 3.6 of 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference elements (range, 2.9-4.5; P<0.001). Hospital course was typically included (97.2%), but summaries were less likely to include discharge condition (30.7%), discharge volume status (16.0%), or discharge weight (15.7%). No discharge summary included all 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference-endorsed content elements, was dictated on the day of discharge, and was sent to a follow-up physician. CONCLUSIONS Even at the highest performing hospital, discharge summary quality is insufficient in terms of timeliness, transmission, and content. Improvements in all aspects of discharge summary quality are necessary to enable the discharge summary to serve as an effective transitional care tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Salim Al-Damluji
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Kristina Dzara
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Beth Hodshon
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Natdanai Punnanithinont
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Harlan M Krumholz
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Sarwat I Chaudhry
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.)
| | - Leora I Horwitz
- From the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.S.A.-D., K.D., S.I.C.), Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (B.H., H.M.K.), and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine (H.M.K.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Medicine, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY (N.P.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (H.M.K., S.I.C.); Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT (H.M.K.); Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, New York University Langone Medical Center (L.I.H.); and Division of Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health and Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine (L.I.H.).
| |
Collapse
|